Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Laura Berg, a nurse at a United States Department of Veterans Affairs-run hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[13] after writing a letter[14][15] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms Berg was represented by the ACLU[16]. Charges were dropped in 2006[1].

I did read a page dealing with US Code, and the final entry said something about being repealed, but it wasn't clear if a subsection, or the entire section dealing with sedition had been repealed.

I strongly suspect that it can be rolled out if the government chooses to use it. I also feel that sedition should have been used against US citizens who went to Afghanistan to fight against US forces, rather than creating some damnfool "illegal combatant" laws to cover them.

Trial by a military court doesn't allow for very many of the silly technicalities that frequently get bad guys off the hook in civilian courts

I think the technical name is "due process". Some folks may not like Innocent Until Proven Guilty (and similar anachronsims), but I think most of us think it's a heck of an idea. I hope it comes back in style soon. Those "silly technicalities" also keep innocent people out of jail at least as often as the guilty ones, after all.

Law & Order and CSI have done a great deal of damage to the public's belief in the justice system, and it makes me sad.

But then the first amendments only really prevents government control of speach. If I want to have an all out <ideology> website, I can erase <opposing ideology> posts with impunity. It is, after all my own website. It's justthat the government cannot make a law saying I have to delete <opposing ideology> posts.

If a person has their own site, should the hosting company or network provider, have the right to say what they can or cannot publish, on the basis that it is being published on that company's equipment?

I think a better question should be: "What did we expect to happen when all of our shit is on hardware owned by someone else?"

Crap like this will become increasingly common as we move info to "the cloud". Hope it was worth saving the $25/mo. hosting fee.

Freedom of speech especially don't occur with copyrighted content. Of all people, followers of the gpl should know this.

Alkhateeb's original Flickr page surpassed 20,000 views. The Times found his Flickr site last week thanks to a tip left by a loyal reader of The Ticket. By Friday, the page had been taken down.

It's so horrible that Times didn't want their photo tinkered with....which is probably from AP who is nice and strict with their photo licenses btw. You can play with your tinfoil hats if you want though.

1. Republicrats and Demoricans both use the same techniques and methods against one another and against 3rd parties.2. You act as if anyone "playing fair" has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. They don't.

Everyone is about scandals and smears. They are more interested in Britney Spears's vagina than they are about her music. They care more about who makes the most convincing speeches than any truth and care nothing about fact-checking.

I'll say this -- Bush's presidency brought in some really ugly laws and practices. Obama's presidency has so far failed on its promise to undo them. They both suck.

What I find funny is that the hordes of Obama-worshipers are now coming out trying to defend Flickr and everyone else involved in this blatant censorship, simply because the "speech" involved is critical of their messiah.

Hang on, where are you finding those "hordes of Obama worshippers"? Admittedly I haven't looked very far, but there don't appear to be any here on slashdot, and the article linked in the story is filled with dozens of comments saying "SOCIALISM IS TEH EVIL!!!!!1111111" or "OBAMA IS HITLER AND SATAN COMBINED", only with worse spelling.

How can you seriously attempt to claim that this parody is racist because the face is white??? Was the original joker racist too because he wore white makeup? Are mimes racist because of their makeup? If the only photoshopping done was to paint his face white then I might agree. But quite clearly the intent was to relate him to a well-known character to get the artist's point across. Why must every criticism of Obama be related back to racism?

I know this is hard for you to fathom, but maybe some people just don't agree with his policies. And I bet if someone of a different race had the exact same policies, that group still wouldn't like them. Not everything is about race.

But quite clearly the intent was to relate him to a well-known character to get the artist's point across.

That's the part I don't understand. The Joker, specifically the one depicted, is certainly a "well-known" character, but he's not a socialist. He's pretty clearly portrayed as at best an anarchist, and at worst completely insane with no real political views whatsoever. The artist seems to have gone out of his way to choose provocative, rather than relevant, imagery. For instance, a Stalin mustache would have fit this alleged "point" better, and not have garnered nearly as much controversy. I'm not attacking his right to do so, I'm just saying the end result is transparent and cheap, manufactured for the sake of shock rather than any real critical message. That doesn't necessarily have to do with racism, either, he's being compared to a murdering psychopath. I don't recall seeing that too much, even with our last President. A Stalin comparison would at least reflect other ideas, about power gone wrong, etc., but with the Joker there's not much to the guy: he's a raving, homicidal lunatic. What are you supposed to think the message is? Does anyone really, truly agree with that, if you take a second to de-polarize from any political bias? That the President = the Joker? I disagree with this being taken down but I also disagree with the knee-jerk response that this is high art and shouldn't be scrutinized. My mind was open to this image, I thought about it, and came to my own conclusions. Free speech is worthless without free thinking, if that makes any sense.

Actually, that's kind of funny, even if everyone disagrees with me I'll feel like I got my point across...

The author of the flickr photo didn't put the socialism on it. [latimes.com] Someone else removed the "TIME" word and labeled it with socialism. That wasn't the picture on Flickr, the one mentioning time was. [latimes.com]

The author said he wasn't really making any political statement, he was learning to use photoshop and followed a tutorial on how to "jokerize" any photo. A couple hours later, he liked what he saw and posted it to his Flickr account. The author also said that he believes he needs to keep low because he lives in Chicago "Alkhateeb says he wasn't actively trying to cover his tracks, but he did want to lay low. He initially had concerns about connecting his name with anything critical of the president -- especially living in Chicago, where people are "very, very liberal," he said." But he also has a photo of Rahm Emanuel [flickr.com] with criticisms of him. His lack of willingness to show a point may be because of where he is and how he is now associated to the photo.

The author did state "After Obama was elected, you had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ," Alkhateeb said. "From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him." which might play into your discussion concerning the character of the joker being used. You know, lack of substance "at worst completely insane with no real political views whatsoever".

I suspect there was probably a political motive behind posting the original picture and perhaps the author is afraid to disclose it.

Hey, winkydink! Stop thinking so hard! Can't you just show the same level of blind and ignorant hatred as the rest of us? We wanted to have a rant about how corporate America was stripping away our freedoms, how we were losing our rights, and how the Gooberment was full of totalitarian assholes!

Now we'll have to kick some puppies to vent our frustrations. Thanks a lot, puppy hater.

Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo!") welcomes you. Yahoo! provides the Yahoo! Services (defined below) to you subject to the following Terms of Service ("TOS"), which may be updated by us from time to time without notice to you.

A little later on, this gem:

but that Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or remove any Content that is available via the Yahoo! Services

There's more!

Yahoo! reserves the right at any time and from time to time to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Yahoo! Services (or any part thereof) with or without notice.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. If not, print this out, take it to your lawyer, and he'll explain it to you using hand puppets and bright crayon drawings.

You were one of many people to respond with this exact sentiment. I'll just respond to you.

I know that a private site has the right to moderate as they see fit. This isn't the removal of pornography, or racist material, illegal material, or any of the usual suspects that would warrant such a removal.

This is Flickr (a US based company) telling its users that they aren't entitled to express political opinions. Does Flickr have the right? It is their site, so yes they do.

Should Flickr censor people however? No. I would hope the democratic principles that supposedly infuse this country would be reflected by US businesses to a certain extent. I hope this turns into the Streisand Effect, wherein trying to censor this image, they only bring far more attention to themselves.

It is unethical, but not unlawful, it is discrimination, but discrimination by political beliefs is not covered by the US Constitution. It violates free speech and freedom of expression, but Flikr is a private company so they can act like Communists or Fascists or whatever and censor as they see fit.

I'm not entirely sure this wouldn't be unlawful. At least in the flickr case. Flickr as well as several other internet sites have government contracts and government agencies use them to their benefit. When those sites show their political leanings in more then a "I support this guy" and turn it into a "You can't criticize the guy I support", it's as if the government who is rewarding them is actually saying it.

If that doesn't violate a law as in no campaigning from government offices, government rewards or the use of government services for particular political speech, or a violation of the first amendment by the government who is in control of the services they use, then it should be.

Please understand, when I say the first amendment, I understand that flickr is a private company, however, when the US government contracts with and used a private company that imposed a particular political speech and forbids dissenting views, the government has effectivly taken the first amendment away from the people. This is the theory behind all the controls on costs, message, and all with other media like radio and TeleVision. The US government should be bared from doing business as essential services with these companies as long as those types of policies are in place to avoid conflicts with the first amendment. Currently Flickr is one of the main places to view administration photo's and such. I see it as no different then taking ads out in only politically biased media outlets in order to fulfill government disclosure in some misguided attempt to expose people to a particular political view.

Actually, I think the problem is that if there is no criticism, then the approval ratings will never drop. This is a reasoning behind removing criticism.

It wouldn't be that bad if the US government didn't have contracts with Flickr and use their services as a means to communicate with the population. This is as unacceptable as if Bush used "only" Fox News to fulfill his communications and public disclosure requirements. Actually, it's a little worse because Fox news will discuss criticisms even if there seems to be a slant on it.

This is Flickr (a US based company) telling its users that they aren't entitled to express political opinions

Actually, this is Flickr telling it's users that oppose Obama that they are not entitled to express their political opinions. There's still tons of GWB photos out there that make this Joker image look rather tame. Don't take my word for it. Go onto Flickr and search for George Bush and look at the pictures. Then search for Obama and compare those to the GWB pics. I could not find a single negative Obama pic. I had a difficult time finding a positive GWB pic. And please don't try to tell me that 100% of Flickr's users love Obama and hate Bush.

There's still tons of GWB photos out there that make this Joker image look rather tame.

That doesn't matter. Flickr claims they took it down because they believe it was a copyright violation, not because it's offensive. The standard, then, is not "how nasty are the remaining Bush images", it's "how many of the remaining Bush images appear to violate copyright law".

Furthermore, the image seems to have sat their quite happily until a bunch of teabaggers took it and started vandalizing public property with it, shoving it into the media spotlight.

You realize all photographs are copyrighted, right? It's no longer something you must apply for, it's been automatic for decades.

Have you seen the picture in question? in infringes on Time and the Joker...

The image in question can't infringe on both, as both were separate images orginially. Putting them together (i.e. replacing Obama with the Joker) is called Parody, particularly political parody, and falls well within fair use. So much so, that Flicker hasn't bothered to remove any other parodic photos from their website, just the Obama pic.

SCOTUS defined parody as "the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works."

The Obama pic is certainly a new composition, and it definitely comments on the original work. It is both making a comment on the TIME cover (by mocking it), as well as making an association between Obama and The Joker. It's all parody.

So what you are saying is that Flickr is exercising their right to support their political party of choice throught he media that they own. Kind of like the opposite of Fox right.

That still doesn't make it right. Furthermore, there is a difference. Flickr is a "community". By manipulating the "real" content in the "community", you do this little thing called shaping the perception of public opinion. Fox News can soapbox the radical right opinion until Bill O'Reilly is blue in the face, but they can't make it seem like nobody hates Obama compared with Bush.

For a fun exercise, imagine what would happen if for the previous election, Google just ignored/down-ranked McCain hits in favour of Obama or even Hillary.

tho if it was taken from the cover of Time magazine, someone made the original image with some photoshopping, it may not be far enough separated from the original to be considered a derivative. It's not parody either.

It's possible that Time (whoever makes the mag) themselves contacted Flickr with a takedown?

I can't just take a harry potter book and slap a picture of Bush boxing with Obama on the cover and call it fair use due to its political interpretations.

Flaw with your post: The flickr user did not publish the whole magazine. Try this: Take a cover of a Harry Potter book, and slap Obama's head on in place of Harry's and proceeded to add a message saying, "Magical spending will save us all!"

This a much more apt comparison.

In fact, something similar was done. [onesite.com] Does that change your opinion?

1 - I won't say Bush is a great President by any means. No one likes him. But you can contend that he preserved more life by going into Iraq than what was lost. Future generations also need to be considered. Any military conflict has civilian causalities. When one side is not wearing uniforms, using human shields, bombing civilians intentionally, etc. civilian causalities are going to be very high. However, millions of people are being liberated. And it wasn't like the situation was great before we got ther

"Late last night... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday.

"I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," he said, adding that inspectors still have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein has revived his nuclear program.

What I love is that the creator of the image, Firas Alkhateeb, has seen his work *cough* borrowed by the Republicans as an anti-Obama anti-Socialist campaign, but his actual intention with the image was to protest about Obama not being liberal enough. (And the fact that Alkhateeb is a Palestinian makes me smile, too.)

Here in Mexico, Rius (a well-known political cartoonist and avowed socialist) once said that he regretted not expressing the criticisms he had for the Soviet Union and Cuba. He refrained from doing it because he "did not want to give ammunition to the enemy".

Unquestionably a parody of the President and Time Magazine which would be covered under fair use.

It's not "unquestionable" at all. First of all, the fact that it's a parody of the President does not make it fair use - to be fair use as a parody, something has to be a parody of the copyright work, not the subject of that work. Second, it's not at all obvious to me that this is a parody of Time Magazine. What feature of the Time cover is being parodied, exactly? It seems to me that the image in question is using the Time photograph to produce an unrelated piece of work commenting on the President. That's no more fair use than, say, sampling a record to produce a new track is fair use.

I think you could make a good case that this kind of transformative use of copyright material ought to be generally allowed, but it doesn't help that case to exaggerate the actual scope of fair-use rights to make derivative works.

to be fair use as a parody, something has to be a parody of the copyright work, not the subject of that work. Second, it's not at all obvious to me that this is a parody of Time Magazine. What feature of the Time cover is being parodied, exactly?

Congratulations, in traditional slashdot fashion, you forgot to RTFA. The original work on Flickr was a version of the Time Magazine cover with the doctored Obama photo. According to the artist, it was done out of curiosity about photoshopping an image and not really any sort of political statement (educational, also fair use). A different faceless internet artist grabbed his photoshop and did more photoshopping to produce the poster with "Socialist" on it. And you might want to read up on parody, I don't think you really came close in your analysis of the legal definition of parody. But, I'm no lawyer, so I won't pretend my opinion on the matter carries any weight.

Let's assume that this is an "open and shut" fair use claim. So what? This will do absolutely nothing to stop you from being sued. The suit will cost you a ton of money or you will lose. Now, you might feel that is a great way to spend your money, but Flickr doesn't want to spend their money dealing with this. Flickr did nothing wrong here. They made a simple, obvious business decision. The problem here is our copyright laws, which give big corporations that can pay for expensive lawyers all the power.

It's not "unquestionable" at all. First of all, the fact that it's a parody of the President does not make it fair use - to be fair use as a parody, something has to be a parody of the copyright work, not the subject of that work.... It seems to me that the image in question is using the Time photograph to produce an unrelated piece of work commenting on the President. That's no more fair use than, say, sampling a record to produce a new track is fair use.

Isn't anyone else bothered ONE LITTLE BIT by the administration asking people to forward email rumors, etc., critical of the Obama or "the health care plan"? The site says "please don't forward names, etc." but they publicly ask that those things be forwarded. So if you have a slightly conspiracy minded friend, and you are one of the many recipients of his email, guess what - the Administration likely has your email address.

Regardless, [the artist who made the original Obama Joker image] Alkhateeb does agree with the Obama "Hope" artist about "socialism" being the wrong caption for the Joker image. "It really doesn't make any sense to me at all," he said. "To accuse him of being a socialist is really... immature. First of all, who said being a socialist is evil?""

Even more so, combining the accusation of Socialism with a depiction of Obama as the Joker makes no fucking sense. The Joker was about chaos and anarchy which is so far away from Socialism that the juxtaposition just strikes me as ludicrous. All it does is make the one who put the poster together look like an ignoramus. I can see the thought train-wreck now: "Lessee... Socialism is evil, and the Joker is evil, so the Joker equals Socialism!" Yeah, I doubt someone that bright even knows what they're accusing the president of. Other than that they're trying to tie him with "evil".

So take a clever image which the artist says wasn't intended as a political message (even though he criticizes Obama), add some moronic twat who thinks it's the perfect political message, and you get something that makes your average political cartoon look intelligent. It'd be like taking those stupid Bushies-In-Drag images, slapping haphazard labels on them like "Immigration Reform" or "Emperialism" and acting like you're a political genius.

The Joker was about chaos and anarchy which is so far away from Socialism that the juxtaposition just strikes me as ludicrous.

It depends what kind of socialism [blackened.net] you're talking about. Of course, though Obama isn't a socialist of any sort, he's even less a libertarian socialist than he is a social democrat (which I think is what people mean when they accuse him of being a socialist).

If by miracle my post is not drowned down into depths of oblivion, note that Dubya was depicted tens of times with very unflattering altered photos, and so was Cheney, while the W. administration was in power - and nobody complained.See this [observer.com] or this [vanityfair.com], for example.

Also, while Mc Cain was campaigning, this rather shocking picture was publicized [newsbusters.org] by The Atlantic - who later recanted and apologized - but the point is, nobody in the McCain camp complained, let alone did you have public and officers making a fuss about it.

But with Obama, the thought police is up in arms bigtime.

And they are right to be: Obama is sacred and he farts rainbows, and his words are words of wisdom, and he poops gold nuggets. And Obama won't speak up: it is the Will of the People that is against any criticism of the Beloved President.

We're still at war. Obama is a War President. If you are not with him, then you are with the terrorists. Any treasonous acts against the president must be quashed at all costs to preserve our freedom and the Cunstitution.

If it was good for W., then it's good for O. If you're going to whine about it, why did you think it was OK to give the President this power? Did you always think that the President would be a guy you approved of?

Yeah except for one big problem: Despite the fact that some posters who have self-persecution delusions think so, the Bush administration did not go around yanking down every insult and parody against him on the Internet. If he had, then 90% of the posts from most/. stories that pass as "politics" would have been taken down by those evil Bushies... last time I checked they were all still there. As other posters have pointed out there are all kinds of nasty photoshop pictures of Bush that were put up while he was president and never taken down.

The stupid lines you parroted above are not what your evil "neocon" enemies were saying, but rather what other liberals parroted to make themselves feel more oppressed and therefore more self righteous. Hell, George Bush had protesters right outside of his private home in the middle of Texas and nothing happened to them except Cindy Sheehan made bags of money and got her own cult following. When Bush was asked about Cindy Sheehan, he didn't call her a Nazi (See Nancy Pelosi insulting people who have done more honest work than she ever will for that), instead he said that he understood that she felt hurt and that she had a right to protest, but that he still believed in what he was doing. Now you can disagree with Bush, but I'm getting REALLY sick of the liberal mantra that all anti-Bush speech was suppressed for the last 8 years because it couldn't be farther from the truth.

You're only allowed to use copyrighted characters and images that belong to the object of parody. This means that if you're mocking Disney, you can use Mickey Mouse, but you can't use Mickey Mouse to parody someone not associated with Disney.

It's counterintuitive, but it's exactly the way our legal system works. This is exactly the same thing that happened when Penny Arcade used Strawberry Shortcake to parody American McGee.

Of course, what's actually happening here is that the people who disagree with the parody are using the letter of the law to get it removed. Moral of the story: if you're going to piss people off make sure you dot your i's and cross your t's first.

I know we all like to complain here, but Slashdot is one of the most even handed moderation systems I have ever seen. Have you ever posted to Reddit or Digg? If they even suspect you're related to somebody who once voted Republican, you get down-modded by over 300 people and banned within minutes.

I see comments of all flavors that get modded up here - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Populist (well, maybe not those). I do love it here.

Yeah, it's amazing how we made it through 8 years of the Bush presidency without anybody photoshopping pictures of George Bush. If that had happened, the neocons would have rioted, man!

Did you just crawl out from under a rock and miss the past 8 years of the internet? I think for all the things you can criticize Bush and the 'neocons' for, not being able to take a joke, is not one of them.

Actually, they never could take a joke. Not with good grace and humor, at any rate. But that's okay, it's often hard for people to do that when they care passionately about the subject in question. That's kind of basic to the vast majority of humans, really. The rather unfortunate part of it is that people degenerate to such infantile gestures. These gestures, in turn, can probably be traced to back to being incapable of holding a rational, respectful conversation with someone of differing viewpoint, whether because of their own inability or the opposition's inability. Eventually it degenerates to a useless shouting and cockmongery that does not help the democratic process in the slightest. It's most unfortunate, but in a democracy, even the retards get their say. I suppose what's most unfortunate about it is that retards tend to be much louder than the thoughtful types, though your mileage may vary.

Seems Flikr's owners are Democrats; or maybe they're Republicans afraid of backlash. I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied? I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.

I think Flikr's removal of the parody was in extremely poor taste. The picture's a joke, son. Grow a sense of humor! Seems to me a bit of political correctness gone even more crazy. Political correctness offends me almost as much as real censorship.

This is not unusual as most in the media, including Internet media, are liberal and will only allow their talking points to be heard. It's funny how the group that screams for equal treatment and equal rights is so quick to silence any that oppose them.

Perhaps you're right, but I don't think this is a liberal thing. I think it is an Obama thing.

People had no difficulty making fun of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Neither did they have difficulty making fun of Al Gore. Even in the late 90s when the internet was comparitvely small, parodies, insulting comics, and distorted likenesses of President Clinton were quite common.

Obama just has more charisma. People who like him take greater offense to slander against him. This is probably what the 30s and 40s were like with FDR (the only president to be elected 4 times BTW).

In light of recent elections (yes, I'm conservative; no, I am not only referring to democrats) and politics in general, it would seem that "charisma" is actually a byproduct of "saying the correct things to the correct people no matter what your actual plans are." Also known as lying to get votes. Campaign "promises."

Studies show the media is neither liberal nor conservative. While reporters are often more liberal than their readership, editors and owners are more conservative. What the media actually is, is pro-owning class, and lazy. When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white. Please try to grow up and see that things are more nuanced, the

When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white.

OK, then how's this: The media treats Democrats better than Republicans. I could also say that the media treated anti-war protesters much better than the anti-government-insurance protesters or "tea-baggers" as the press likes to call them.

Prime example: Here [dailyradar.com] is a CNN reporter at two different protests. One is an anti-Bush protest where she calls a giant Bush head with a Hitler mustache a Bush "look alike". Then you see the exact same reporter interviewing a Tea Party protester with a picture of Obama as Hitler. She says, "do you have any idea how offensive that is?" Same situation, different presidents, different responses. Watch that and please tell me that the press is not biased.

Here is a quote from a UCLA study (not a conservative school, btw):

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said coâ'author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

That half or more Americans think Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack -- perhaps the most media-covered event in our history -- stands as a horrific indictment of U.S. media today. Such levels of ignorance can't be found in other countries.

Americans who are fundamentally misinformed about 9/11 provide the bulk of those tallied in polls as supporting Bush and the Iraq war. Subtract them from polls and Bush is an unpopular president -- widely seen as having accomplished a bait and switch, redirecting U.S. anger and vengeance toward a country that did not attack us.

Really ? Then where are those pitchforks ? Where was the BusHitler backlash ? There was absolutely no shortage of anti-bush rhetoric, imagery, or anything. Blatantly racist imagery, faked imagery, faked evidence, death threats,... no shortage at all.

Of course pointing out that as far as policy comparisons go, it's Obama's policies that resemble those of the ("early") Hitler : govt. healthcare, govt. takeover of car companies, stimulus money on creating his own civilians corps,... all those policies were implemented by both. Now pointing that out, no matter how true (and how irrelevant), is racist.

>resemble those of the ("early") Hitler : govt. healthcare, govt. takeover of car companies, stimulus money on creating his own civilians corps,... all those policies were implemented by both.

Or all early 20th century European governments. You know the ones today with excellent universal healthcare, less obsese people, better public trans, lower infant mortality, less debt, more personal savings, free education, and quality of life standards.

Oh right, everything is about Hitler. Thats "reasonable" and your side is hysterically yelling Hitler like spoiled children unable to win a debate.

Well, to be fair, Bush starter a war that killed at least tens of thousand innocent people based on false pretenses. I think that is a fairly negative thing to do.

The problem with drawing comparisons with Obama's policies and Hitler's is that it makes you look like a freaking idiot. As much as you don't like Obama, he is not trying to round up people in concentration camps and commit genocide. Every other civilized nation has govt. healthcare, why aren't you talking about how those leaders brought it to

When Flickr only allowed real-life photos, an image like this would have been removed regardless of the content.

He is not the author of the photograph.He does not have copyright for the photograph.He does not have permission to use Time trademarks.

You can fair use all you want on your own resources.

After the legal flap over the HOPE painting for using an AP source image, yeah, Flickr might want to avoid the mess altogether. Between having to lawyer up against Time-Warner and earning the indignation of right

And was it the same Iraq that Clinton bombed without asking permission? Was it the same Iraq that Clinton said was pursing WMD? Was it the same Iraq that had rape/torture rooms in the police offices, shut off water to towns, and was keeping food out? Was it the same Iraq were 30 million lives were in jeopardy, and the people thanked the US for liberating them?

In reality, both parties supported going into Iraq. You can question whether or not the war was justified (despite Iraq violating over 75 security resolutions, and the UN saying if they weren't 100% complicit, then the cease-fire of 1991 was null and void, authorizing military intervention). But you can't pin the war on one person. The President can't go to war. Congress goes to war. And Congress had no problem with it.

Ipernity *was* ok....but they've changed. I switched from Flickr to Ipernity.......but I finally killed my account with them because of their Mickey Mouse censorship rules. I know quite a few professional photographers who also left Flickr and moved to Ipernity.....and then left for the same reason.